Testy, Testy

Entrepreneur, June, 2000 by Chris Penttila

Drug testing: an easy way to keep problem employees out or a cost-ineffective invasion of privacy? Join the debate.

These days, it seems employee drug testing has become about as commonplace as providing business cards. Chances are, if you don't already have a drug-testing policy, you're probably considering instituting one. And for the most part, potential and existing employees have even come to accept it as a part of the present-day job process. So why, when drug testing appears to be such a vital part of the modern American workplace, are some small-business owners and experts re-evaluating whether it's really good for business?

According to Daniel Abrahamson, legal affairs director for the Lindesmith Center in San Francisco, "Employers need to think hard about why they're drug testing; what their bottom line is."

EVERYBODY'S DOING IT

Most employers test for drug use because they believe it curbs accidents, increases productivity and enhances the bottom line. In fact, in a 1999 American Management Association (AMA) study, 83 percent of employers surveyed indicated they believe drug testing deters employee drug use.

This kind of faith in drug testing has attracted growing popularity over the years. The AMA found that the percentage of U.S. companies testing for drugs increased threefold, from 21.5 to 81 percent, between 1986 and 1996. Mark de Bernardo, executive director of the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, insists that drug testing increases employee productivity. "Eleven percent of the work force has engaged in illegal drug use," he says. "Drug testing is an area you don't want to compromise. We have safer and more productive workplaces because of it."

Recent research, however, questions the importance of traditional workplace drug testing. Last fall, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report saying off-duty use of illegal drugs contributed little to workplace accidents. In addition, a survey of 63 Silicon Valley-area companies, conducted by the Le Moyne College Institute of Industrial Relations in Syracuse, New York, found that productivity was actually about 16 percent lower in companies with pre-employment testing and 29 percent lower in firms that used both pre-employment and random testing. Why? The researchers speculated that talented workers in a tight labor market prefer to seek out employers who don't test for drugs.

A BIG DECISION

Suppose you're testing your employees for drugs and you discover your most productive and knowledgeable employee failed a random drug test because of some off-duty marijuana use last Saturday night. Will you actually follow through and fire her? Or that promising applicant with the niche skills you so desperately need who didn't pass the test: Are you sure you want to let him get away? In today's tight job market, situations like these can be difficult, and small companies struggling with growth have it particularly rough. "Especially in hightech right now, employers generally aren't willing to exclude 'puffers,' "says Abrahamson. "Too many are too educated and good at what they do."

Even an advocate of drug testing like de Bernardo admits that a tight job market can change the way that employers approach the issue of drug testing in the workplace. "Employers tend to relax their standards," he says. "[Lowering the standard] does occur. But it's not a positive thing in the long run."

Keith Snyder, CEO of 5-year-old Snyder Party Rental and Event Services in Charleston, South Carolina, has flirted with the idea of testing his 30 full-time employees and has called for estimates in the past. His current strategy can best be described as "don't ask, don't tell." When hiring, he conducts a background check but stops at that. "For now, I don't want to know if my employees use drugs," Snyder, 34, says. "I've been trying to find a dishwasher for two months. I can't afford to lose people."

Snyder adds that he doesn't feel comfortable judging the workers at his company, which had sales of $2 million in 1999, for the things they do off the job. "Can I fire a good employee for something done outside of work?" he asks. "'When it comes down to it, no. I'm not willing to make that choice."

Raj Thiyagarajan, 34, CEO of Msys Inc. in Cary, North Carolina, doesn't test his employees because he prefers to have faith that they'll do the right thing. His business, which does application and Web site development for Fortune 500 companies, doesn't test any of its 40 employees. This isn't because of cost, Thiyagarajan explains, but because he believes in the trust factor. He says that to date, he hasn't encountered any problems with his employees and would want evidence of drug use before taking action. He adds that he'd know if a worker's productivity was dropping off. "Drug addicts wouldn't last long," he says. "We'd be able to tell if they weren't performing well."

Eric Greenberg, director of management studies for the AMA, has this advice for small employers: "Don't ask the question unless you're ready for the answer."